Spoiler warning on the trailer. It gives away what I'm assuming are the first two acts of the story, and maybe part of the third.

Well, I'm wondering if this is the case...there's a whole gaggle of Whedon's stock company in this movie who aren't in the trailer (plus some others, like Richard Jenkins). Maybe the trailer is intentionally misleading?

Well, I'm wondering if this is the case...there's a whole gaggle of Whedon's stock company in this movie who aren't in the trailer (plus some others, like Richard Jenkins). Maybe the trailer is intentionally misleading?

The philosopher Noel Carroll said that horror stories want to produce in us a combination of fear and disgust. Carroll calls this “art-horror” in order to distinguish it from the “natural horror” of, say, fear of a coming tornado. Art-horror describes our relationship to a story—we’re not just frightened by Frankenstein or Freddy Krueger; we’re repulsed by them, in part because they are deformed versions of ourselves. Horror can be very cheap, of course (which is part of Whedon and Goddard’s concern), but when it’s rich, it forces us to look at those deformities. Horror promises that it’s fun to be frightened, and then, once the fun is over, keeps us staring until we’re ready to ask what we’ve done to become this way.

The Cabin in the Woods, it seems to me after one viewing, is this rich kind of horror. Its use of religion is not the most pronounced aspect of the film, but it’s necessary to the film’s most basic question: Why would we go to The Cabin in the Woods in the first place?

Beth Rambo tweeted an article over the weekend that has some great buzz (and also underlining the whole "NO SPOILERS!" bit). I'm pretty excited.

Thanks for the virtual retweet, Jason.

Y'all know that I'm too much of a 'fraidy cat to actually see this movie, as much as I'd like to support the Joss-man. It may be the best horror movie ever. I hope it makes a bazillion dollars. It's still not for me. This is why I'm not a professional film critic.

Note: It's currently 95% positive at Rotten Tomatoes. And so far, the blurbs are safer to read than I would have expected. (I wouldn't open any of the reviews linked there, though. These reviews have unprecedented potential for spoilers.)

Keith Phipps at the AV Club gives it an A-. I'm trying to avoid spoilers on this movie, and it seems like Phipps does an OK job of avoiding them (I only skimmed it).

I won't link it here, but Rex Reed also phoned in an incredibly negative review over at the New York Observer. I didn't read it, but judging from some of the comments, people are suspecting he fell asleep at some point — I guess he "spoils" a lot of things that don't actually happen in the movie.

I won't link it here, but Rex Reed also phoned in an incredibly negative review over at the New York Observer. I didn't read it, but judging from some of the comments, people are suspecting he fell asleep at some point — I guess he "spoils" a lot of things that don't actually happen in the movie.

My review. (Spoilers, but only mild, first-act spoilers that have already been widely spoiled.)

I appreciate the restraint of this review, Jeffrey, but you use a word that rather gives the game away. (Here's a hint: it begins with "A.") Knowing your excellent track record for withholding "wonderful surprises," I thought you might like to reconsider.

Nathaniel, good catch on the title. And I guess I thought the "A" word was flexible enough to represent literal events or storytelling implications... but based on your response I've changed that line.